Islamic Reformation

[Derek Smith]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Islam had its reformation in its early days. 1000 yrs ago Islamic scholars led the world. They took the zero that the Hindus invented and improved the concept beyond recognition. The catholic church banned the use of zero in Europe for 200 yrs, as they were scared it would allow ordinary people to do maths and then they could see how much they were being ripped off on their taxes and tithes.

We still use Arabic numerals today, that were an invention of Islamic scholars, as was algebra.

Unfortunately, Wahhabi-ism came along and ruined it all, and they've been going backwards ever since. The Muslims of 1000 yrs ago would be horrified at the current state of affairs.

Of course. I forgot that.

[creampuff]

AJS- said:

Where does Islam peacefully co-exist with other religions? As I see it, it's generally only when they're a small minority.
[/footnote]

Iraq used to be quite tolerant of other religions and had a muslim majority. But now Saddam has gone and ISIS plus an ineffectual government are there what a cluster fk that is.

[Haggleburyfinius]

creampuff said:

AJS- said:

Where does Islam peacefully co-exist with other religions? As I see it, it's generally only when they're a small minority.
[/footnote]

Iraq used to be quite tolerant of other religions and had a muslim majority. But now Saddam has gone and ISIS plus an ineffectual government are there what a cluster fk that is.

Just because you are a very strong man holding the top on the boiling pot doesn't mean what's going on inside isn't bubbling away nonetheless.

[TLandCruiser]

its not so much the religion, but lack of education.

[AJS-]

Well the difference with bulldozing a mountain is that nothing necessarily takes it's place.

Whenever countries have tried to explicitly ban religion it's usually ended badly as worship of the mighty state has been worse.

[daddy cool]

AJS- said:

Whenever countries have tried to explicitly ban religion it's usually ended badly as worship of the mighty state has been worse.

If you are talking about totalitarian regimes, then they tried to ban religions in order to remove competition from themselves.
Do you have any examples of countries that tried to remove religion just for the sake of the greater good/progress? (genuine question, ive never heard of it)

[FredClogs]

daddy cool said:

If you are talking about totalitarian regimes, then they tried to ban religions in order to remove competition from themselves.
Do you have any examples of countries that tried to remove religion just for the sake of the greater good/progress? (genuine question, ive never heard of it)

France has probably done more than any other country over the past century or so to ensure a strict demarcation of secularism, the US was heading that way until the Regan era got into bed with the religious right to get the votes in - but the numbers in all countries seem to be only going one way... Fewer and fewer people are relying on faith.

[AJS-]

I think by definition you'd have to be fairly totalitarian to attempt to ban all religions.

I think the US is as close as it comes to a successful genuinely secular state. France had many problems after the revolution and as far as I know the church has at times still played a fairly strong role in French life, but it is an explicitly secular country. Turkey under Ataturk became secular on paper but I'm not sure it ever has been in practice.

Abolishing all religion in the foreseeable future is a utopian fantasy. A rigorously secular state would do nothing to tackle the wider problem of militant Islam, which is in it's more extreme forms seeks to impose it's own state which is anything but secular.

I'm interested as to whether there is much of a "gap in the market" for a form of Islam which explicitly rejects the intolerance and militancy of it's current forms.

[TurboHatchback]

FredClogs said:

daddy cool said:

If you are talking about totalitarian regimes, then they tried to ban religions in order to remove competition from themselves.
Do you have any examples of countries that tried to remove religion just for the sake of the greater good/progress? (genuine question, ive never heard of it)

France has probably done more than any other country over the past century or so to ensure a strict demarcation of secularism, the US was heading that way until the Regan era got into bed with the religious right to get the votes in - but the numbers in all countries seem to be only going one way... Fewer and fewer people are relying on faith.

I applaud the French approach and think we should apply similar here, they still have serious problems with Islam though so clearly even that is not an adequate solution. I think even stronger methods will be required to make real long term progress.

Unfortunately once someone is infected by religion it's usually impossible to cure them via education. What we could do is ban any form of faith schooling, criminalise deliberately infecting others, attempt to immunise the young by teaching them about it like we do the black death and the holocaust, ban face coverings in public, disallow faith as an excuse for not obeying laws or doing your job properly etc etc. It wouldn't solve the problem overnight but it might start things moving in the right direction.

[Funk]

The biggest mistake people make is thinking we have to 'respect their religion'. Respect is earned, not given. The most I will do is tolerate it, as long as it doesn't affect me in any way. People should be free to believe in sky fairies and woo-woo as much as they like but I'm free to think they have mental issues for doing so.

If you started ANY of the old religions today you'd be locked up as nutter, but because generations before have been duped into believing the same st that makes it OK apparently...

[rscott]

AJS- said:

stovey
It needs it because it is currently a scourge everywhere it is a significant force at all. Whether FGM, brutal "justice" and internal war with it's fellow Muslims, oppression of non-Muslims in Africa, insurgency in Sri Lanka or Thailand and elsewhere or terrorist attacks against the west in a seemingly endless campaign with no real end in sight.

Edited by AJS- on Tuesday 6th October 10:04

Just a minor point, FGM isn't a Muslim only problem. It's extremely prevalent in some African Christian countries and very uncommon in many Muslim countries.

[FredClogs]

rscott said:

AJS- said:

stovey
It needs it because it is currently a scourge everywhere it is a significant force at all. Whether FGM, brutal "justice" and internal war with it's fellow Muslims, oppression of non-Muslims in Africa, insurgency in Sri Lanka or Thailand and elsewhere or terrorist attacks against the west in a seemingly endless campaign with no real end in sight.

Edited by AJS- on Tuesday 6th October 10:04

Just a minor point, FGM isn't a Muslim only problem. It's extremely prevalent in some African Christian countries and very uncommon in many Muslim countries.

And Male genital mutilation is common place across a lot more cultures, religions and territories.

Look, I'm no cultural anthropologist, I can hardly spell it but I've heard it said that religion is a consequence not a driver of human behaviour, it's a tool that past and present society needs to bind "the tribe" it's pretty obvious to all that there are negative consequences to religion but if you look a bit deeper and further into what we are and where we came from you have to accept that there is something going on in religion that chimes inherently with aspects of human behaviour, that is to say you can't just cut it out, it would be like cutting of your nose to spite your face.

[AJS-]

I don't think any of those things will make a blind bit of difference to the ever more militant Muslims in the UK and elsewhere for whom it's a simple choice between fundamentalism Islam and the sinful ways of the infidel kafr.

Might be worth adding that while I hope it can be changed I am not convinced.

While it seems that Jesus was a fairly self effacing character who fed 5000s and healed the blind, and the Buddha was a kind of OCD list maker, it seems to be quite fundamental to the story that Mohammed was a warlord who spent a huge amount of time talking about conquering and subjugation of non Muslims. This seems to have taken a deep root in Islam probably in the way that oppression by the Romans did in Christianity. He also seems tobhave been very definite that his was the final word of God and anyone claiming to update it was evil. An ambitious statement to say the least.

But this is only an impression formed by casual interest.

[The Don of Croy]

FredClogs said:

... religion is a consequence not a driver of human behaviour, it's a tool that past and present society needs to bind "the tribe" it's pretty obvious to all that there are negative consequences to religion but if you look a bit deeper and further into what we are and where we came from you have to accept that there is something going on in religion that chimes inherently with aspects of human behaviour, that is to say you can't just cut it out, it would be like cutting of your nose to spite your face.

I find this hard to disagree with (probably a first on PH where FC/MN is concerned).

Just look at how 'attached' some people get to 'their team' and how it affects their judgement. Not rational, very emotional, probably unavoidable?

[groucho]

daddy cool said:

Why would you expend any energy trying to "reform" islam? Surely its best to use that energy to completely remove it (and all other religions at the same time).

Is there a "button to push" to stop it instantly? No - but in the timeframe of human history it could be done almost instantly.
Tomorrow we could ban any government funding for religion, ban any religious broadcasting, ban the wearing of burkas/veils, ban faith schools, make the mutilation of boys & girls genitals illegal, ban halal/kosher meat etc etc.
People are free to believe what they want, in the comfort of their own home, natch, but if you arent happy with the above, go to another country that allows it.
Over time, the more countries that follow suit and become 100% based on science and not ancient superstition will gradually see the end of this bullst.

I like the cut of your jib.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

TLandCruiser said:

its not so much the religion, but lack of education.

But for the Taliban, ISIS and the like, lack of education is a religious imperative.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

FredClogs said:

And Male genital mutilation is common place across a lot more cultures, religions and territories.

There's no such thing as MGM. Circumcision, which I assume you're referring to, is a modification, and you're entitled to be against it, but certainly not mutilation. To say it is and to liken it to FGM belittles the physical and mental trauma that is often the result of FGM.

[daddy cool]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There's no such thing as MGM. Circumcision, which I assume you're referring to, is a modification, and you're entitled to be against it, but certainly not mutilation. To say it is and to liken it to FGM belittles the physical and mental trauma that is often the result of FGM.

I call it mutilation if you don't have a say in the matter.

Unless of course babies somehow communicate the message "im ok with this". Maybe they do this at the same time as they say "I believe in god(s), and coincidentally, I believe in the same one(s) as my parents do."

[FredClogs]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

FredClogs said:

And Male genital mutilation is common place across a lot more cultures, religions and territories.

There's no such thing as MGM. Circumcision, which I assume you're referring to, is a modification, and you're entitled to be against it, but certainly not mutilation. To say it is and to liken it to FGM belittles the physical and mental trauma that is often the result of FGM.

I suppose you're aware people who practice FGM don't call it mutilation either, modification is an interesting term, maybe I'll get mine lowered and a spoiler on the rear?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

daddy cool said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There's no such thing as MGM. Circumcision, which I assume you're referring to, is a modification, and you're entitled to be against it, but certainly not mutilation. To say it is and to liken it to FGM belittles the physical and mental trauma that is often the result of FGM.

I call it mutilation if you don't have a say in the matter.

Kids don't get a say in a lot of things that are done to them by their parents, but that doesn't make it mutilation. Of course you may not think it's right, which is fine and a perfectly valid point of view, but don't call something mutilation when it clearly isn't.